When I saw, 'frames', I immediately thought of the things that attach to my nose and ears that hold the rose-tinted lenses in place.

I think of rose tinted glasses as like dispositional attitudes towards things that we're seeing. I once saw a ted talk where buddy said that we all have road maps that take us to certain emotional places, so that optimists find the pathway to optimism, pessimists find the pathway to pessimism etc.

I thing that even further than that, frames organize the very details of what we're seeing, making somethings stand out, and others remain in the background, and the same information doing different work in our frames. Luckily for this, the glasses analogy still works, they just need to be thicker, which is what they call "goggles". Which is usually what niche fans call their vision which allows them to see their niche everywhere, like furry goggles let them see the ancient egyptians as furries!

Plus you get to disappear behind the camera and it's all a documentary and you're just the narrator. "I'm just reading from the encyclopedia here."

That's true too. The "objective view", or the scientific view is an inherently unself-conscious one. It removes the first person, and renders everything in the third person. One is then, as you say, just the narrator of the truth, type deal. It isn't about you. It's just the ways things are.

So we make limited connections with each other? I wonder if there is a way to look through other people's eyes.

How radical is the alterity? I think that it's possible to occupy the same frame, and perception itself will fall in line. Though, since it can never be literally checked... it may always rely on some fairy dust and happy thoughts. :)

(Y)
To add...these frames aren't static and lifeless. They evolve with the content you put into them. Fixing, flexing, metamorphosing...

I can't see the forrest for the trees but I can see some of the kinds of valuable frames one could make out of a set of trees.

$$$

Out of curiosity, can you expand some on dat?

When someone is being honest about feelings, and intentions, — Wosret

What one honestly feels is in itself uncertain and continously evolving. Even as some speaks, something else may immediately come to mind. Ditto for intentions. What are my intentions?

Be that as it may, Shakespeare provides some reasonable advice:

"This above all, to thine own self be true."

However, this at times may require someone to quit their job or profession or career, which is not that uncommon.

It's not clear or obvious, especially when just contemplating, or talking, which I'll polarize for my purposes. Contemplation in my view is to wonder, to take apart, to dismantle certainties. Yapping on the other hand lends itself to entrenchment. We feed off of other people's feelings, and beliefs, so that when we wish to persuade someone, or we are questioned about something, we immediately dig our heels in, and over-state our cases. It's both a degree of competitiveness, but also if we take them too seriously, than their doubt is our doubt, they're the alter-ego, the contrarian. Just as dangerously, if not more dangerously, we latch on to agreement, praise, and things like that and become more and more certain the more faith and support that we can garner. Your persuasion is my persuasion. All of this muddies the shit out of the water, and we get lost among the crowd to ourselves.

Mindfulness, and attention I think is the cure. What is your true feelings, and views? You can't just look inside yourself and find out, you'll just see all of the talk, the doubt and confidence of your interactions, and your head is full of other people's voices. You gotta watch yourself, and see how you behave, what you do, and then pivotal moments will arise where you'll seemingly do something, or feel some way, and it will be counter to your idealization, or your deprecations, and you need to not dismiss it in favor of pre-conception.

We judge, and know what is judged, and in favor of what, and we either wish to excuse ourselves, or take more responsibility than what is due, and you have to basically be detached, and go with your first impression, and not your reaction to it.

That's what I think. It's difficult to hold on to stuff, and difficult to not entirely be consumed by, or become the various emotions and thoughts that arise. Like one hand washing the other, you always have to be the one watching the actions, watching the thoughts, watching the feelings.

However, this at times may require someone to quit their job or profession or career, which is not that uncommon. — Rich

That's what I did... and looking for a job and suffering for it, but I got some distance away from my mom, and got rid of my little sister. She was also trying to dump my little brother one me too. I couldn't even go home, I was breaking, and needed to gtf out of dere. I miss having money, lol, but other than that I'm calmed down a whole lot. Need to get my shit together by 40, or I probably never will...

Mindfulness, and attention I think is the cure. — Wosret

I don't know if it's a cure but it's certainly is a good practice.

Why is it a good practice?

Improving metacognition (and the ability to see these 'frames') for one, but there are other related benefits.

How radical is the alterity? — Wosret

I think it's as you said: seeing the same frame. With the average statement, there aren't too many different interpretations (somewhere around 5 in some cases). Couldn't rule out a case where there are two different interpretations in play, but it never comes to light for either party. I just don't know of any cases of that. Seems like I'd know about if it happened very often.

Why is metacognition a benefit? I'm not just continually asking these questions... but the point is that you are eventually going to have to say for no real benefit at all, or because it improves your health or well being in some sense. You can dispute the gravity, and completeness of the term "cure", but you'll still end up somewhere close to remedy. What other reason could there be for it?

I thing that even further than that, frames organize the very details of what we're seeing, making somethings stand out, and others remain in the background, and the same information doing different work in our frames. — Wosret

If I scan the room looking for my keys, I look at it one way; if I'm deciding where to set up Catan to play with my kids, I look at it another way. If those are frames, I create, I dunno, hundreds of them every day.

I was thinking of them as more general principles, that one sees everything in relation to. One surely can be play, and maybe another one serious business, and one can come up with hundreds of things in relation to those, but not hundreds of entirely different modes, or frames within which one operates and sees everything in relation to. Even deeper than that, there is a purpose of play, and a goal of play, just like your serious business.

Just think about people posting here, don't you notice like the same general theme over and over and over again? Seems like everyone I talk to, and everyone I read does this too. Maybe I'm just superficial, rather than deep, and there is a lot more to people then just the few things I hear them talk about, but I also notice in myself that I'll get captured, or occupied with some theme, and then start to piece together the world around it. Every time I get out, they just pull me back in!

I have this thing, where I notice that people often say pretty much the same shit for years and years... I worry that I'ma start doing that, but I like to change things up. I like to believe that what I say now, although many of the specific pieces are older than the hills, are different things, from an entirely different perspective than years ago. I'd like to believe that I can keep that up, and keep moving around.

I find that for many a peep, once you'd heard or read them enough, you feel like you get the gist of where they're coming from, and see that they only really have like half a dozen ordering principles by which they interpret information, and they're steady over time, even if they say different stuff. Their bag of tricks.

That's really plausible, absolutely.

When I posted, I almost said "hundreds, or even thousands" but didn't, and then afterward it occurred to me I was really talking about something like attention. So now I'm tempted to say "millions".

I guess I'm just resisting the idea of cognitive habits hardening into worldviews because I'm feeling skeptical about conceptual schemes these days.

But I see a way of putting our ideas together: attention can flicker, different ways of looking at things are always offering themselves to you; some of that you filter out just to stay functional, or to carry through on your intentions.

But if you actively tamp down other ways of looking at things when you don't have to, that's what makes you dogmatic. It's not that your theory makes it impossible to see certain things; it's that you make an effort not to, that you insist on sticking to one way of looking.

What I think of as frames, or scaffolding, which are like ways of organizing information. — Wosret

I studied a book about that general idea back in the day, in Philosophy of Science - 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' by Thomas Kuhn. But the lecturer said that in many ways Kuhn was simply building on Michael Polanyi, who had come up with the idea of 'tacit knowledge' or 'implicit knowledge'.

One is then, as you say, just the narrator of the truth, type deal. It isn't about you. It's just the ways things are. — Wosret

That's 'the lab coat of authority'. The 'new atheist' types are big on that.

Just think about people posting here, don't you notice like the same general theme over and over and over again? — Wosret

I've been doing that, since 2009, when I first started posting, but I have learned quite a bit along the way, and the substance changes over time.

Well, I wouldn't want to just think that everything I see is the same things as what I've already seen and know... that doesn't lend itself to learning much that's knew. I think that's what you're doing here.

I don't understand.

I studied a book about that general idea back in the day, in Philosophy of Science - 'The Structure of Scientific Revolution' by Thomas Kuhn. But the lecturer said that in many ways Kuhn was simply building on Michael Polanyi, who had come up with the idea of 'tacit knowledge' or 'implicit knowledge'. — Wayfarer

This is a good example, see I would say that phronesis sounds like the same thing as "tacit knowledge", as I've read about both of those things, and they sound similar to me. When I talk of frames, or when I talk about something about me, then I kind of piece a picture together to point at it, but there is a lot of "kinda" involved, because it is never quite representative of the thing. Like painting a picture is never precisely the same as the scenery, but comparing pictures I've seen, and copies, or ones done in different mediums doesn't suffer thing problem, they can look the same to me. When it comes to places I've been, or things I can do, the explanation, or representation can never be mistaken for the real thing. When dealing in symbols, and ideas, this gets lost I think.

It's like the difference between crystallized and fluid thinking. Fluid thinking operatives in the unknown, and crystallized in the known. The latter is more just memory, and as we age we lose the former more and more. Everything just becomes that which has come before. We begin to know everything, unfortunately.

I suppose that I prefer practice over cure because it's something that must be continually practiced.

I figured that it was just semantics. Didn't mean to overstate the case. You're right, the moment you get complacent, it gets you!

Yeah, that's interesting. I think I was imagining something like crystals constantly forming and falling away, or a crystal that constantly morphs into new shapes.

It's tempting to think that repetition could lead to a shape locking in, or at least making it harder for it to change shape.

I often say that a major part of philosophy is learning to to look at your spectacles instead of only through them.

Out of curiosity, can you expand some on dat? — Wosret

The frames you speak of are dynamic and interact with the content you put into it. One may start off with the principle that ''love is good'' and then fit into this frame facts about the world. These contents will reinforce and consolidate the frame. However, any fact that's contrary (an exception) will force you to alter the frame...transforming it into something better (hopefully).